What To Know About Sector ETF Investing

On Nov. 20, S&P and MSCI announced dramatic changes to its Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS), which underpins the indexes of hundreds of sector ETFs.

The changes include the introduction of a new communications services sector, built on top of the existing telecommunication services sector, and the probable reclassification of some of the most-well-known tech and media stocks, such as the FAANG (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Google) stocks.

To make sense of the developments, ETF.com recently spoke with Denise Chisholm, a sector strategist for Fidelity Investments, whose specialty is the use of historical probability analysis to tease fact from fiction in how sectors work.

ETF.com: The GICS revisions going into effect next year are huge. The changes could potentially impact the lineup of dozens of ETFs, including those from Fidelity. What steps should investors take now to prepare?
Denise Chisholm: As a sector investor, there are two things you're concerned about. First is the availability of the specific exposure you're looking for—meaning, if you want energy exposure, you don't want an ETF with both energy and utilities in it. Second is understanding how that exposure behaves. In the new GICS structure, [S&P and MSCI] did a great job of thinking about how investors want their exposure, by putting all the communication exposures in one basket. But investors really need to be aware that they also created a fair amount of diversification in that new GIC; specifically, in burying telecom services. Telecom services behave very differently from media companies, but now they're in the same GIC.

ETF.com: How do they behave differently?

Chisholm: Let me give you a real-world example. During 2015 and 2016, by many measures, profits actually contracted. We had a profits recession without an economic recession. What you saw then, and what you've seen in history whenever that happens, was a defensive rotation.

So, in that defensive rotation, you'd equal-weight defensive sectors, like consumer staples, utilities, health care and telecom services. After all, historically, people still need to buy toothpaste and turn on the lights; they still need to go to the doctor—and they still pay their cable bill.

So from 2015 to June 2016, the S&P was down, modestly. Telecom services and cable companies—companies in that defensive basket—were up about 8%. Media, though, was down. It underperformed the S&P by about 400 basis points.

So if you're an investor who's worried about another profit contraction and you want this good defensive exposure, it's now buried deep in this new GIC. That’s something people need to be aware of.

ETF.com: So should investors think of the new communications services sector as a cyclical play instead of a defensive one? Is it neither?

Chisholm: The new communications GIC is dominated by cyclical exposures. The classic telecom services—diversified telecom, wireless, cable—is a small portion in this broader cyclical exposure. So the sector will act more cyclical.

We'll see if there remains the availability of defensive telecom services as a stand-alone exposure. But for investors worried about another profit contraction, they may be left now with only three options: consumer staples, utilities and health care.

Chisholm: I hear that a lot, both internally with our diversified portfolio managers and externally from clients: "Tech is the only one working; 50% of the gains come from the top 10 stocks, which are all tech," and so on. But I do historic probability analysis, so I look at things a little bit differently.

If you look at the relative performance of tech versus the market, or versus the worst sector, or versus average sector performance, you plot that outperformance over time. You'll find we are dead center of the range. It’s true that a lot of gains have come from tech, but it's not really different from what we've seen in history. We're not experiencing any tail event here.

Up until the last three months, we saw very modest returns in the S&P 500. And the more modest returns you have, the more it's just a function of math that you see the 50% of gains accounted for by 10-12 stocks. That's very typical, when I judge through a historical lens.